Advertisement

Distributed Ranking Methods for Geographic Information Retrieval

  • Marc van Kreveld
  • Iris Reinbacher
  • Avi Arampatzis
  • Roelof van Zwol

Summary

Geographic Information Retrieval is concerned with retrieving documents that are related to some location. This paper addresses the ranking of documents by both textual and spatial relevance. To this end, we introduce distributed ranking, where similar documents are ranked spread in the list instead of consecutively. The effect of this is that documents close together in the ranked list have less redundant information. We present various ranking methods, efficient algorithms to implement them, and experiments to show the outcome of the methods.

Keywords

Information Retrieval Ranking Method Voronoi Cell User Query Ranking Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Carbonell, J.G., and Goldstein, J., 1998. The use of MMR, diversity-based reranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 335–336.Google Scholar
  2. Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., and Rivest, R.L., 1990. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Goldstein, J., Kantrowitz, M., Mittal, V.O., and Carbonell, J.G., 1999. Summarizing text documents: Sentence selection and evaluation metrics. In Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 121–128.Google Scholar
  4. Goldstein, J., Mittal, V.O., Carbonell, J.G., and Callan, J.P., 2000. Creating and evaluating multi-document sentence extract summaries. In Proc. CIKM, pages 165–172.Google Scholar
  5. Harman, D., 2002. Overview of the TREC 2002 novelty track. In NISI Special Publication 500-251: Proc. 11th Text Retrieval Conference (TREC 2002)Google Scholar
  6. Heckbert, P.S., and Garland, M., 1995. Fast polygonal approximation of terrains and height fields. Report CMU-CS-95-181, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, C.B., Purves, R., Ruas, A., Sanderson, M., Sester, M., van Kreveld, M.J., and Weibel, R., 2002. Spatial information retrieval and geographical ontologies — an overview of the SPIRIT project. In Proc. 25th Annu. Int. Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2002), pages 387–388.Google Scholar
  8. Rauch, E., Bukatin, M., and Naker, K., 2003. A confidence-based framework for disambiguating geographic terms. In Proc. Workshop on the Analysis of Geographic References. http://www.metacarta.com/kornai/NAACL/WS9/Conf/ws917.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. van Kreveld, M., van Oostrum, R., and Snoeyink, J., 1997. Efficient settlement selection for interactive display. In Proc. Auto-Carto 13: ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention Technical Papers, pages 287–296.Google Scholar
  10. Visser, U., Vöogele, T., and Schlieder, C., 2002. Spatio-terminological information retrieval using the BUSTER system. In Proc. of the EnviroInfo, pages 93–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc van Kreveld
    • 1
  • Iris Reinbacher
    • 1
  • Avi Arampatzis
    • 1
  • Roelof van Zwol
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations